Morality is subjective

[Darth Wong]

If something's arbitrary, it's up to individual discretion, and isn't fixed by any external rules. At least that's what I intended by my usage of the word arbitrary.

Correct. It can still, nevertheless, be based on objectivity rather than subjectivity. For example, if I arbitrarily decide that 95% efficiency is the target for my new heat transfer system, that is an objective quantity, and I can objectively determine whether an individual prototype meets that standard. The question of what constitutes an acceptable standard is separate from the question of whether it is objective.

What definition of subjective are we using in this thread? That would definitely be necessary to decide whether morality is subjective or not. I had thought it meant a quality existing only in the mind, but I may be mistaken.

"Subjective" means that the value depends on the observer. The idea that it is impossible to define or judge a system of morality without standards that differ from person to person is simply wrong. The desirability of any given standard may be subjective (although even that may not be true depending on the standard; as I said earlier, survival of the human species is arguably necessary for all moral codes), but that doesn't mean the standard itself is subjective.

[SVPD]

Edit: as a hypothetical, SVPD, what is the difference, morally, between a 30 year old Human who is of the mental capacity of a dog and a dog, given that they have no familiar/friend ties and will never be anything else? I don't think you should treat the human any better than you would the dog. They are on the same level, no?

Now, I know this is very unlikely to be the case in reality, but just for the hypothetical. I don't know of any humans who are dog-level intelligence without ties.

I already explained this. All members of the species homo sapiens should be treated by the same moral rules. Barring extreme and unusual circumstances that would make it necessary to treat a given member as if they were not a member of the species, we should not treat any arbitrarily selected member as if they were morally different from any other arbitrary member (or the average member, if you prefer), regardless of the specific properties of said person.

The difference, morally, come from the fact that all people should enjoy equal protection before the law.

[Darth Wong]

The difference, morally, come from the fact that all people should enjoy equal protection before the law.

So all people should be treated equally because ... all people should be treated equally? Sounds pretty circular to me.

Suppose you're in a burning building and you can only save one of 3 people: a friendless severely retarded individual, a mother of five, or a scientific genius? Which would you choose? The retard? The genius? The mother? You'd honestly have no preference and would just flip a coin?

[SVPD]

The difference, morally, come from the fact that all people should enjoy equal protection before the law.

So all people should be treated equally because ... all people should be treated equally? Sounds pretty circular to me.

Suppose you're in a burning building and you can only save one of 3 people: a friendless severely retarded individual, a mother of five, or a scientific genius? Which would you choose? The retard? The genius? The mother? You'd honestly have no preference and would just flip a coin?

No, that was why I mentioned "barring extreme circumstances". The presence of physical circumstances that would preclude equal treatment overrides any theorectical requirment for equal treatment.

I'll also point out that I stated equal treatment before the law, not equal treatment in general. Equal treatment in all aspects of life is impractical, and may not be a good idea even when it is. You made a good argument in another forum for only allowing high school grads to vote.

That would be equal treatment before the law: Everyone is allowed to attempt graduating high school and no one is stopped from doing so for any reason other than academic performance. A person who is unwilling to put forth the effort is demonstrating they do not care about the consequence of not voting. A person unable to graduate is demonstrating lack of mental aptitude sufficient to understand the issues involved in voting (assuming, for argument's sake, that a high school diploma indicates a minimal necessary level of such understanding.)

Equal treatment under the law is necessary to prevent the use of force as a tool to arbitrarily advance the interests of whoever can muster the most force.

The example of the retarded 30 year old with no attachments whatsoever is valid only in that very extreme example. If we were to arbitrarily select any 2 persons, the chances of either one of them fitting such criteria is exceedingly slim.

It is therefore, far easier from a practical standpoint, to assign the same legal standing to all members of the species than to create special rules for extrme outliers.

[Surlethe]

Out of idle curiosity, what does the law have to do with whether or not mistreatment of a retarded person is ethical?

[b00tleg]

[/quote]"Subjective" means that the value depends on the observer. The idea that it is impossible to define or judge a system of morality without standards that differ from person to person is simply wrong. The desirability of any given standard may be subjective (although even that may not be true depending on the standard; as I said earlier, survival of the human species is arguably necessary for all moral codes), but that doesn't mean the standard itself is subjective.[/quote]

I'd agree but isn't species survival more of a biological imperative then a social one? Survival is inherent in many species and usually leads to those species doing whatever is necessary to survive. I don't see morality being instriniscally linked liked that to survival b/c if any member of the species started worrying if fighting for their survival was moral and hesitated. It'd be logical to assume those members of the species do not survive.

[Simplicius]

How is abusing a puppy less morally objectionable than that unloved, mentally handicapped child (^above) assuming they have a similar brain capacity (though the dog could reproduce)?

There's probably not too much point in bringing this up - but perhaps the extension of moral codes to human-animal interaction is our tendency to anthropomorphize. For example, I interact with my pets as if they were people, and my treatment of them is governed by the same basic principles that govern my treatment of people. In general, the easier it is for me to anthropomorphize a given animal, the more likely I will treat it with human ethics despite the fact that the animal lacks ethics of its own.

That's why some people can say that eating meat is morally wrong; it actually isn't at all, but they have anthropomorphized animals to the point that they apply the same rules that prevent them from eating people.

I'd agree but isn't species survival more of a biological imperative then a social one?

Don't forget that humans are by nature social creatures, so social survival and competition between social groups is as biological as species survival. Even if one clan of humans destroys the rest, the genetic line of that clan survives and the species endures - and in general, the idea is that the behaviors and/or genes of that one clan are better suited to survive than those of the destroyed clans.

Humans have a heirarchy of social organizations, and the sources of moral behavior apply at all levels.

[SVPD]

Out of idle curiosity, what does the law have to do with whether or not mistreatment of a retarded person is ethical?

Here:

Equal treatment under the law is necessary to prevent the use of force as a tool to arbitrarily advance the interests of whoever can muster the most force.

The retarded person is most likely not able to muster any force at all in their own defence, much in the way a poor person would probably not be able to muster as much force as a rich person.

Now, as to WHY the rearded person should be protected from being treated as though they were a dog, the reason is that the average person is treated as a person and the average dog is treated as a dog.

In order to justify treating the retarded individual differently, you would need to show that the retarded individual is morally different.

[Darth Wong]

I'd agree but isn't species survival more of a biological imperative then a social one? Survival is inherent in many species and usually leads to those species doing whatever is necessary to survive. I don't see morality being instriniscally linked liked that to survival b/c if any member of the species started worrying if fighting for their survival was moral and hesitated. It'd be logical to assume those members of the species do not survive.

On the contrary, the "every man for himself" ethos would have led to the extinction of the human race in its infancy. We can't compete with bigger, stronger, tougher animals without our ability to work co-operatively in social groups. And such co-operation requires trust: an important virtue which could lead to disaster for a prehistoric tribe if it was broken.

[b00tleg]

[/quote]In order to justify treating the retarded individual differently, you would need to show that the retarded individual is morally different.[/quote]

Not so much. Dogs would be treated quite differently if they could speak. A mentally handicapped person is treated with the same rights as a regular person, because they are a person known to have the ability to speak. Just because they are unable to speak for whatever reason dosen't negate the fact they still have the ability.

[SVPD]

In order to justify treating the retarded individual differently, you would need to show that the retarded individual is morally different.[/quote]

Not so much. Dogs would be treated quite differently if they could speak. A mentally handicapped person is treated with the same rights as a regular person, because they are a person known to have the ability to speak. Just because they are unable to speak for whatever reason dosen't negate the fact they still have the ability.[/quote]

[Lord Zentei]

And you are still using:

principles distinguishing right vs wrong => morality
morality => principles distinguishing right vs wrong

Then suggest something else already.

You define the concepts of right and wrong without appealing to morality that is intended to encompass these ideas. In order to allow for the moral philosophy to guide interactions between human beings, you base the ideas of these rights and wrongs upon objectively verifyable knowledge of economics and psychology, etc, the sciences that describe human thought and interactions.

And evolution is an idea. Only the observations that lead to our ideas about it are objective. These observations are undisputed, the disputes are typically over what they mean.

Now hurry up and tell me how you can prove that one set of moral principles is any better than another without basing your argument on either position. For instance:

Society is evil! Promote anarchy! vs Society is all that matters, promote a productive society!

Explain, objectively (that is, subscribing to neither view) why either one is better than the other.

Objectively, anarchy leads to economic and social situations that are destructive to the human condition, and it is based on postulates that are falsified by economics. QED.

The various positions are only seen as correct or incorect because you analyze them based on your own position. There's no way to qualify one or the other as correct or incorrect if you're only speaking objectively, with no principle or position of your own in mind.

You are again confusing opinion with morality, and "right vs wrong" with agreement and disagreement. These are not synonymous.

[Surlethe]

Equal treatment under the law is necessary to prevent the use of force as a tool to arbitrarily advance the interests of whoever can muster the most force.

The retarded person is most likely not able to muster any force at all in their own defence, much in the way a poor person would probably not be able to muster as much force as a rich person.

You think equal treatment is necessary to force people not to take advantage of our as-intelligent-as-a-dog guy. Great. What does that have to do with whether or not taking advantage of him is ethical in the first place?

Now, as to WHY the rearded person should be protected from being treated as though they were a dog, the reason is that the average person is treated as a person and the average dog is treated as a dog.

So, because the average person is treated as a person and the average dog treated as a dog, the retarded person also ought to be treated as a person. How, exactly, does that follow?

In order to justify treating the retarded individual differently, you would need to show that the retarded individual is morally different.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. There is a man who has the intellectual capacity of a rock, but he's one of the prettiest guys you'll ever lay eyes on. Currently, every day, he's paraded out in front of a gallery of people so they can look at his body -- i.e., they treat him like a rock. Is this treatment justified?

[Rye]

Regarding the extinction of the human race angle, why should I care about the species after the current generation? I'm not saying I don't, or that I do, just asking why, logically, I should?

Using an example, imagine humans are becoming less fertile in a serious manner, something like 80% of subsequent generations are infertile, which increases with each new generation by a percentage. Now, why should someone in one of those generations have to care about the continuation of the species?

He would already have real world problems to deal with, so why would the survival and creation hypothetical future of people that don't even exist yet preoccupy his time?

[SVPD]

You think equal treatment is necessary to force people not to take advantage of our as-intelligent-as-a-dog guy. Great. What does that have to do with whether or not taking advantage of him is ethical in the first place?

The circumstance of his being so retarded is A) beyond his control and B) not one that can be remedied through any action he is concievably going to be able to undertake.

So, because the average person is treated as a person and the average dog treated as a dog, the retarded person also ought to be treated as a person. How, exactly, does that follow?

I already explained that. It alleviates the need to waste time and effort on determining who ought to be treated in what way. Why would we want to go to the trouble of inventing multiple rule sets based on the intelligence, or lack thereof?

What justifiable reason is there to treat a person as not being a person because of a condition of retardation? I need to see some evidence justifying that it is ethical to do so. How did we arbitrarily pick "intelligence" or "retardation" as the criteria to justify this sort of behavior?

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. There is a man who has the intellectual capacity of a rock, but he's one of the prettiest guys you'll ever lay eyes on. Currently, every day, he's paraded out in front of a gallery of people so they can look at his body -- i.e., they treat him like a rock. Is this treatment justified?

Well, if he LITERALLY had the intellectual capacity of a rock, he would have insufficient mental power to sustain his heartbeat and breathing.

If you just mean "he's astoundingly stupid", then no. What justifiable need do these people have to lay eyes on an attractive moron on a daily basis?

[b00tleg]

Regarding the extinction of the human race angle, why should I care about the species after the current generation? I'm not saying I don't, or that I do, just asking why, logically, I should?

Using an example, imagine humans are becoming less fertile in a serious manner, something like 80% of subsequent generations are infertile, which increases with each new generation by a percentage. Now, why should someone in one of those generations have to care about the continuation of the species?

He would already have real world problems to deal with, so why would the survival and creation hypothetical future of people that don't even exist yet preoccupy his time?

You don't have to care about furthering the human race and/or worrying about future generations. Just don't ever reproduce and walla, problem solved.

[Surlethe]

Regarding the extinction of the human race angle, why should I care about the species after the current generation? I'm not saying I don't, or that I do, just asking why, logically, I should?

Using an example, imagine humans are becoming less fertile in a serious manner, something like 80% of subsequent generations are infertile, which increases with each new generation by a percentage. Now, why should someone in one of those generations have to care about the continuation of the species?

He would already have real world problems to deal with, so why would the survival and creation hypothetical future of people that don't even exist yet preoccupy his time?

The point isn't that you should care about the extinction of the species; the point is that if any sort of moral code permitted behaviors which led to the extinction of the species, that moral code wouldn't have survived, and neither would humans. It follows immediately that there will be certain behaviors common to all moral codes, which, in turn, provides an objective basis to begin an analysis of the qualities which make a good moral code.

[Simplicius]

Regarding the extinction of the human race angle, why should I care about the species after the current generation? I'm not saying I don't, or that I do, just asking why, logically, I should?

I doubt most people do, in anything other than an abstract sense. But would you say you should not care about your children? If you had/have children, it is proper to care about them - and about their children, and (if you live long enough), their grandchildren. If every person who has children cares for those children, then the species as a whole will care about the future of the species of the whole without a single person sitting down and thinking, "Gosh I'm alarmed about the prospects for humanity."

To make sure that what I'm saying isn't circular - caring for family is a biological imperative, not a moral one. A moral code would derive from the biological imperative.

[Surlethe]

You think equal treatment is necessary to force people not to take advantage of our as-intelligent-as-a-dog guy. Great. What does that have to do with whether or not taking advantage of him is ethical in the first place?

The circumstance of his being so retarded is A) beyond his control and B) not one that can be remedied through any action he is concievably going to be able to undertake.

That's wonderful. You didn't answer my question.

So, because the average person is treated as a person and the average dog treated as a dog, the retarded person also ought to be treated as a person. How, exactly, does that follow?

I already explained that. It alleviates the need to waste time and effort on determining who ought to be treated in what way. Why would we want to go to the trouble of inventing multiple rule sets based on the intelligence, or lack thereof?

So you're simply appealing to pragmatism? It's equally pragmatic to declare all humans with dark skin as vile criminals each worthy to be punished on sight; after all, the majority of prisoners in our jails are black.

What justifiable reason is there to treat a person as not being a person because of a condition of retardation? I need to see some evidence justifying that it is ethical to do so. How did we arbitrarily pick "intelligence" or "retardation" as the criteria to justify this sort of behavior?

In order to do this, we have to define a person. It's convenient to define a person as simply a human being; however, there are varying degrees of humanity within the race. In the case of our unrecoverable dog-man, the only thing which differentiates him from a dog is the shape of his body and his basic instincts. You agree that a dog does not occupy the same moral status as a human, correct?

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. There is a man who has the intellectual capacity of a rock, but he's one of the prettiest guys you'll ever lay eyes on. Currently, every day, he's paraded out in front of a gallery of people so they can look at his body -- i.e., they treat him like a rock. Is this treatment justified?

Well, if he LITERALLY had the intellectual capacity of a rock, he would have insufficient mental power to sustain his heartbeat and breathing.

Let's set aside the question of vital functions for the moment, since they're not unique to the human form, while brainpower is.

If you just mean "he's astoundingly stupid", then no. What justifiable need do these people have to lay eyes on an attractive moron on a daily basis?

But he looks good; you might say his body is a work of art. Isn't that all the justification they need?

[SVPD]

That's wonderful. You didn't answer my question.

Ok.. He doesn't deserve it. Treating a person in the same fashion as a dog would be punishment when done to an average person, or even to a relatively stupid person. How is it not punishment when done to a severly retarded person?

If you did so, you would be punishing this person for a circumstance he cannot control.

So you're simply appealing to pragmatism? It's equally pragmatic to declare all humans with dark skin as vile criminals each worthy to be punished on sight; after all, the majority of prisoners in our jails are black.

That's not pragmatic at all. There's no causal link between skin color and criminal behavior. It's highly unpragmatic and impractical to punish large numbers of people in order to deal with the criminal subset of that group. I'm surprised you would use an analogy so easily dismantled.

In order to do this, we have to define a person. It's convenient to define a person as simply a human being; however, there are varying degrees of humanity within the race. In the case of our unrecoverable dog-man, the only thing which differentiates him from a dog is the shape of his body and his basic instincts. You agree that a dog does not occupy the same moral status as a human, correct?

Yes, I agree that a dog and a human occupy different statuses.

However, I see no evidence for your assertion that there are varying degrees of humanity within the species.

I also don't see why the shape of the person's body and basic instincts are insufficient to qualify him as fully human despite his lack of intelligence. He shares the genetic makeup of humans, and empirically is a member of the species. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck even if it's a really dumb duck.

Let's set aside the question of vital functions for the moment, since they're not unique to the human form, while brainpower is.

Didn't appreciate the joke, huh?

But he looks good; you might say his body is a work of art. Isn't that all the justification they need?

No.

How could you possibly define the arbitrary combination of human physical characteristics as art? Who's creative enrgy made this art? I don't define beautiful sunsets as "art" either.

[Surlethe]

That's wonderful. You didn't answer my question.

Ok.. He doesn't deserve it.

Does a dog deserve to be owned by humans and made to serve them? Just because something isn't deserved doesn't mean it's unethical; for instance, you probably don't deserve to be given $500 out of the blue, but such a gift wouldn't be unethical.

Treating a person in the same fashion as a dog would be punishment when done to an average person, or even to a relatively stupid person. How is it not punishment when done to a severly retarded person?

If you did so, you would be punishing this person for a circumstance he cannot control.

Why is treatment of a person as a dog necessarily punishment?

So you're simply appealing to pragmatism? It's equally pragmatic to declare all humans with dark skin as vile criminals each worthy to be punished on sight; after all, the majority of prisoners in our jails are black.

That's not pragmatic at all. There's no causal link between skin color and criminal behavior. It's highly unpragmatic and impractical to punish large numbers of people in order to deal with the criminal subset of that group. I'm surprised you would use an analogy so easily dismantled.

Thank you for entirely missing my point; I'm pointing out that it's not pragmatic to lump everybody with the average, because whether or not you want to believe it, there will exist deviations from the mean. By your logic, lumping an entire group with the average is all right to save time and effort from determining who ought to be treated in what way; and, since it's a well-known fact African-Americans are, on average, much more likely to be jailed than whites, it certainly saves you time and effort to simply prejudge a black man rather than going to the trouble of inventing multiple rule sets based on criminality, or lack thereof.

In order to do this, we have to define a person. It's convenient to define a person as simply a human being; however, there are varying degrees of humanity within the race. In the case of our unrecoverable dog-man, the only thing which differentiates him from a dog is the shape of his body and his basic instincts. You agree that a dog does not occupy the same moral status as a human, correct?

Yes, I agree that a dog and a human occupy different statuses.

However, I see no evidence for your assertion that there are varying degrees of humanity within the species.

If a human has the sapience of a dog, then what sets him apart from a dog? Merely his appearance and physical constitution. You're basing your entire moral code on superficial qualities in order to "pragmatically" -- i.e., without giving thought -- determine moral status.

I also don't see why the shape of the person's body and basic instincts are insufficient to qualify him as fully human despite his lack of intelligence. He shares the genetic makeup of humans, and empirically is a member of the species. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck even if it's a really dumb duck.

Nice red herring. Nobody is questioning the fact our retarded dog-intelligence man possesses characteristics of the species H. sapiens; the issue is whether or not the man deserves a moral status equal to more sapient individuals.

But he looks good; you might say his body is a work of art. Isn't that all the justification they need?

No.

How could you possibly define the arbitrary combination of human physical characteristics as art? Who's creative enrgy made this art? I don't define beautiful sunsets as "art" either.

Whether or not it's actually "art" is immaterial; the key point here is that you disagree that he ought to be a spectacle simply because he shares superficial features with other humans. Am I correct in this assertion?

[Pick]

Regarding the extinction of the human race angle, why should I care about the species after the current generation? I'm not saying I don't, or that I do, just asking why, logically, I should?

Especially an interesting question if you note the fact that the more people there are, the more competition there is for space, natural resources, etc.

[SVPD]

Does a dog deserve to be owned by humans and made to serve them?

Yes. It's an animal that cannot develop a moral code in order to assist it's species in survival.

Just because something isn't deserved doesn't mean it's unethical; for instance, you probably don't deserve to be given $500 out of the blue, but such a gift wouldn't be unethical.

I did not think it necessary to qualify it as "undeserved and detrimental" since I referred to punishment, but apparently I do.

Why is treatment of a person as a dog necessarily punishment?

You're moving the goalposts. If treating a person like a dog was not necessarily punishment we would be discussing whether it's ethical to do so. Dogs are not treated as well as the average person. Neither are criminals. In the case of criminals, it is because they have comitted crimes.

You have given no reason why such treatment would cease to be punishment when applied to a retarded person.

Thank you for entirely missing my point; I'm pointing out that it's not pragmatic to lump everybody with the average, because whether or not you want to believe it, there will exist deviations from the mean. By your logic, lumping an entire group with the average is all right to save time and effort from determining who ought to be treated in what way; and, since it's a well-known fact African-Americans are, on average, much more likely to be jailed than whites, it certainly saves you time and effort to simply prejudge a black man rather than going to the trouble of inventing multiple rule sets based on criminality, or lack thereof.

Except that in your analogy it does NOT save any time and effort; I could make a strong case that it COSTS time and effort. It takes a great deal of time and effort to subjugate millions of people in that respect, especially when they take exception to doing so. You are attempting to equate putting aside extreme outliers which are so rare and so far from the averager as to merit individual consideration with treating millions of people who differ from the EXACT average as if they were all exactly the same.

If a human has the sapience of a dog, then what sets him apart from a dog? Merely his appearance and physical constitution. You're basing your entire moral code on superficial qualities in order to "pragmatically" -- i.e., without giving thought -- determine moral status.

I do not see that these qualities are superficial. the gentic makeup of a being is not superficial at all; it determines what that being will be.

What sets him apart is the fact that he is not a dog. Mike has pretty firmly established that a moral code must as a prerequisite ensure the survival of the species for it to be relevant. If we exclude members of the species from consideration as members, the concept of "species" ceases to have meaning.

Nice red herring. Nobody is questioning the fact our retarded dog-intelligence man possesses characteristics of the species H. sapiens; the issue is whether or not the man deserves a moral status equal to more sapient individuals.

That's not a red herring at all. The moral code starts from the survival of the species. This person is a member of that species regardless of sapience. You need to prove that lack of sapience in the individual excludes him from the protection of the moral code.

So far I see you presenting me with a lot of assumptions that you expect me to take at face value when answering your questions. I'm doing my best to answer your questions, but you keep refusing to validate these assumptions.

Whether or not it's actually "art" is immaterial; the key point here is that you disagree that he ought to be a spectacle simply because he shares superficial features with other humans. Am I correct in this assertion?

Quit moving the goalposts. You claimed he could be considered a work of art; I showed how that is not the case. Now you're changing the key point to something else.

furthermore, you have yet to establish why it would be ethical to parade a person in front of people for their visual enjoyment.

I need to see some answers and defense of your position before I give you anything else.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

SPVD: you say this:

You're moving the goalposts. If treating a person like a dog was not necessarily punishment we would be discussing whether it's ethical to do so. Dogs are not treated as well as the average person. Neither are criminals. In the case of criminals, it is because they have comitted more crimes.

You have given no reason why such treatment would cease to be punishment when applied to a retarded person.

Think of what characteristics of humans make them more morally valuable. Then subtract that from the equation. It should tell you why it is not a punishment.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: if it is ok to parade a dog around and own it because it is too stupid and cognitively unaware to know, then intelligence and level of sentience is obviously your criterion. Barring the existence of outside influences: family, friends, you really should should treat a human or the dog on the same level, isnce they are on the same mental level. There is no relevant difference. They both can feel, but neither have the higher level interests that separates them. Which is more valuable in moral status? A dog or a cat? Neither really, since they are on the same relative level of sentience.

Humans are not inherently more valuable for being human as cats are not more morally valuable than dogs simply because they are a different species. It would be a nonsense to say: Humans are more valuable than dogs. Why? What makes humans more valuable than dogs? The fact that humans are not dogs. Ok. What characteristic of dogs makes them morally inferior to humans? The fact that they are not humans... .... ....

It's completely foreseeable that there could be non-human aliens somewhere. The fact is they could be smarter than we are, or just the same level of intelligence. Would they be worth "less" because they are not human? That's awefully speciest.